Slashdot Mirror


View the Moon in 3D on Your Desktop

TheBeansprout writes "You can now view the moon in 3D With NASA World Wind with two sets of Clementine data and full placenames. "We have just digested the best of the images, so we can now deliver the moon at 66 feet (20 meters) of resolution" says Patrick Hogan, World Wind project manager at NASA Ames. "This is a first. No one has ever explored our moon in the 3-D interactive environment that World Wind creates," he adds. Download World Wind and view the quick tutorial or tour to interact, and there's some moon screenshots available too. A linux version of World Wind is slated for early 2006."

168 comments

  1. Great by Muppski · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now I dont even have to move to the window to see the moon

    1. Re:Great by scumfuker · · Score: 1

      Windows? You actually let THAT much light in?

    2. Re:Great by Celt · · Score: 1, Funny

      You can travel around the earth (maps.google.com) and explore the moon without leaving your PC, you'll never have to go outside again.
      Ah the wounders of the Internet

      --
      "WebTV: bringing the Internet into the shallow end of the gene pool since 1995" - Martin Bishop
    3. Re:Great by Celt · · Score: 2, Funny

      The light, the light
      IT BURNS IT BURNS!!!
      arghhhhhhhhhhh

      --
      "WebTV: bringing the Internet into the shallow end of the gene pool since 1995" - Martin Bishop
    4. Re:Great by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 2, Funny

      My eyes...the goggles do nothing!!

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    5. Re:Great by DrSkwid · · Score: 2, Funny
      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    6. Re:Great by Spacejock · · Score: 1

      When you said full moon, I was expecting (dreading) something along the lines of goatse

    7. Re:Great by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1

      You know about that "outside" thing? I've a few of these too, nicely behind glass ofcourse. I just wonder: do I have to feed all those moving things in there? Or do I have to water it? It seems like I can open those glass things, but I'm a bit cautious since I don't know for sure those things in there won't bite. Also is there a way to keep the light in there on a bit longer or is that harmfull to the little creatures?

    8. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still have to use Windows? I'll wait for the linux version.

    9. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually until it is available on Linux you DO need to use 'Windows' to see the moon.

    10. Re:Great by poolmeister · · Score: 1

      The worldwind moon addon has been around for ages.
      Nothing new here...

      --
      CN=poolmeister.OU=lurkers.CN=slashdot
  2. Oh great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...time to eBay my new telescope.

  3. So the Moon is at 20m per pixel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and Earth is at 500m per pixel (BlueMarbleNG)?

    1. Re:So the Moon is at 20m per pixel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody's going to commit terrorist attacks on the moon with detailed information they garner from Worldwind.

    2. Re:So the Moon is at 20m per pixel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      have you ever used worldwind? Just switch the dataset to one of the landsats, nearly as good as google earth.

    3. Re:So the Moon is at 20m per pixel by empaler · · Score: 1

      Actually, in sparsely populated areas (like my home town in Greenland), the WW imagery is better than Google's.

  4. In the mean time... by WWWWolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...while we wait for Linux version, is anyone working on getting this stuff to Celestia? Would rock if the two programs could easily use the same data though.

    The screenshots seem nice, but regrettably not really too much more impressive than what you can already do with Celestia. =(

    1. Re:In the mean time... by Bungopolis · · Score: 4, Informative

      Celestia is a "universe" explorer, and it's very good at its job. WorldWind is a "world" explorer, and it's very good at its job.

      WorldWind has two primary advantages over Celestia for exploring the Moon:

      * Streamed imagery - data is downloaded as you view, which makes it possible to support extremely high resolution and detailed data that, if downloaded all at once (as would have to be the case with Celestia), would span hundreds of gigabytes.

      * Topographic projection - WorldWind supports topographic data for both the Earth and the Moon. This means that if you can see craters and mountains in 3D, which is what really sets it apart from viewing a flat image. Even viewing a flat image projected onto a simple sphere (as in Celestia) is not much more enlightening than viewing a flat photograph of the sphere itself.

    2. Re:In the mean time... by WindozeSux · · Score: 1

      ...which is what really sets it apart from viewing a flat image. Even viewing a flat image projected onto a simple sphere (as in Celestia) is not much more enlightening than viewing a flat photograph of the sphere itself.

      That's what bump mapping and parallax mapping are for.

      --
      Fallout 3 will suck.
    3. Re:In the mean time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The official WorldWind code hasn't yet been ported to Linux, but the WW2D project (an Open Source clone) is arguably better anyway. Check out

      http://ww2d.berlios.de/

  5. Robot dog barks at the 3D flat screen Moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    This helps much. Now Aibo the robot dog can bark at the moon without exposing himself to the dangerously dirty and humid environment outside. Saves on the repair bill tremendously.

  6. View the Moon in 3D on Your Desktop by SmilingMarsupial · · Score: 0

    pc

  7. An even closer view by KiloByte · · Score: 5, Funny

    Mandatory Wikipedia link.

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    1. Re:An even closer view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mandatory Google Link

    2. Re:An even closer view by Maavin · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's no moon!

      What a cheesy joke...

      --


      Crivens! I kicked meself in me own heid!
    3. Re:An even closer view by MCraigW · · Score: 1

      You have to zoom in all the way to see the Apollo equipment.

  8. Better then google moon by bvdbos · · Score: 4, Funny

    Of course they couldn't stay behind after Google released Google Moon but this looks way more promising...
    Let me just say: Cool!!! (-9F, 451R, -23C, 250K on the average that is...)

    1. Re:Better then google moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just too bad World Wind had the Moon AND Mars as an add-on LONG before Google threw up their 1 small section of the moon.

  9. That other celestial body by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What, no Uranus joke yet??

    1. Re:That other celestial body by spot35 · · Score: 3, Funny

      WorldWind ... Uranus ... Naah, too easy.

    2. Re:That other celestial body by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      goatse already gives us a close up of that..

  10. 20m resolution and the landing sites... by spot35 · · Score: 1

    I guess this means we still won't be able to see the landing sites in enough detail? Maybe someone with more knowledge can explain why we can't provide a higher resolution for these images if we can see celestial objects millions of light years away...

    1. Re:20m resolution and the landing sites... by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd say it's mainly because the instruments used to take the images have a 20m resolution. When there's a camera which can take pictures of the landing sites from earth, there will be pictures of the landing sites from earth. Not before.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    2. Re:20m resolution and the landing sites... by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Where Earth = lunar orbit, I mean. I'm somewhat decaffienated.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    3. Re:20m resolution and the landing sites... by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      Here you go.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    4. Re:20m resolution and the landing sites... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe someone with more knowledge can explain why we can't provide a higher resolution for these images if we can see celestial objects millions of light years away...

      20m at 384,400km is like 0.05 LY at 1,000,000 LY. The question is whether we can resolve a celestial object millions of light years away *and* 0.05 LY across.

    5. Re:20m resolution and the landing sites... by NeoThermic · · Score: 4, Informative
      >I guess this means we still won't be able to see the landing sites in enough detail?

      Correct. The largest object that is on the moon is the 14036kg SIVB from Apollo 15. Located at 1.51S 17.48W (or as a WWURI: worldwind://goto/world=Moon&lat=-1.51&lon=-17.48&a lt=13402 ), it isn't actually visible, possibly because that is its impact place, rather than a resting place (so it could well be smashed).

      The largest intact objects is the Lunar Rovers, and there's three of them ( Apollo 15's rover (worldwind://goto/world=Moon&lat=26.08&lon=3.66&al t=13402), Apollo 16's rover (worldwind://goto/world=Moon&lat=-8.97&lon=-15.51& alt=13402) and Apollo 17's rover (worldwind://goto/world=Moon&lat=20.17&lon=-30.77& alt=13402), however at about 2 meters in length, on a 20m/pixel basis they are a 10th of a pixel.

      So in short, if you're looking for 'evidence', you'll be waiting for higher-res images :)

      NeoThermic

      P.S. Sorry for the non-clickable URL's, but slashdot strips out the usefull characters, so WWURI's end up as: worldwind:gotoworldMoonlat-151lon-1748alt13402, which is useless

      --
      Use my link above, or to view my server, NeoThermic.com
    6. Re:20m resolution and the landing sites... by NeoThermic · · Score: 1

      Small correction on myself. The offical design documentation lists the length of the rovers at 122 inches, which is 3 meters, so thats a 6th of a pixel at 20m/pixel; or still too small to see.

      NeoThermic

      --
      Use my link above, or to view my server, NeoThermic.com
    7. Re:20m resolution and the landing sites... by MikeyToo · · Score: 3, Informative

      The largest intact objects left on the moon after the landings were not the LRVs but the descent stages for the LMs, one from each of the six successful landings. These are about 4 meters across. Other unintact items from the landings were the ascent stages of the LMs which were intentionally crashed into the moon to provide seismic data.

      http://aesp.nasa.okstate.edu/fieldguide/pages/aain dex/home1.html has impact point data for the ascent stages.

      --
      "Well Ranger Brad, I'm a scientist. I don't believe in anything." - Dr. Roger Fleming
    8. Re:20m resolution and the landing sites... by NeoThermic · · Score: 1

      >The largest intact objects left on the moon after the landings were not the LRVs but the descent stages for the LMs

      Good point, but if they were visible, you would see them by looking where the rovers are (since all rovers were parked a few hundred meteres from the descent stages).

      I do find it intresting that the SIVB never left a large enough mark to make an impression on a 20m/pixel view, on the consideration that they weighed some 14,000 kg and (according to wikipedia) were 17.8m in length and a 6.6m diameter...

      NeoThermic

      --
      Use my link above, or to view my server, NeoThermic.com
    9. Re:20m resolution and the landing sites... by saider · · Score: 1

      I guess this means we still won't be able to see the landing sites in enough detail? Maybe someone with more knowledge can explain why we can't provide a higher resolution for these images if we can see celestial objects millions of light years away.

      Because celestial objects are also very large. Galaxies span hundreds of thousands of light years, which is why they are visible.

      (from wikipedia)
      The angular resolution (in radians) of a telescope is roughly wavelength/diameter. Optical wavelengths are in the 500nm range.

      The observed radian value of a distant object is given by object width/distance.

      So a moon lander, say 5m wide, which is about 385,000km = 385,000,000m would need a resolving power of 5/385,000,000 = 1.29e-8 rad.

      206,265 arcseconds = 1 radian

      So the moon lander is about 0.002 arc seconds if observed from the vicinity of earth.

      So using our equation above,

      Radians = wavelength/diameter

      or

      diameter = wavelength/radians = 500e-9 / 1.29e-8 rad. = 38.75 meters.

      That is a BIG telescope. Don't forget to account for atmosphereic effects. And please check my math.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    10. Re:20m resolution and the landing sites... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because in that case we would be able to see what is *really* so interesting on moon for NASA to go there again but too shocking for normal person...

      The technology to see every detail on moon has been there for a long time. Also the possibility to publish these images (on the web). Even so, please don't expect this to happen anytime soon.

    11. Re:20m resolution and the landing sites... by david.given · · Score: 1
      When there's a camera which can take pictures of the landing sites from earth, there will be pictures of the landing sites from earth. Not before.

      Given that the landers took pictures on the way down and the way up, you could probably put together higher-resolution data for the areas around the landing sites; it should be possible to patch these in to the existing datasets, so you could do such things as examine the landing sites from the 'air' and get decent results.

    12. Re:20m resolution and the landing sites... by MikeyToo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Perhaps it's because they were mostly empty space. After the LM was pulled from the SLA and the Apollo spacecraft was a safe distance away, the S-IVB was slowed by 115 FPS by dumping propellants through the engine, then all the tanks are vented to safe the stage. When it impacted it was just a lot of aluminum sheeting.

      --
      "Well Ranger Brad, I'm a scientist. I don't believe in anything." - Dr. Roger Fleming
    13. Re:20m resolution and the landing sites... by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      That's actually a really good idea, might take more than two runs, but if the satellites are going to be flying past ad infinitum anyway...

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    14. Re:20m resolution and the landing sites... by Botia · · Score: 1

      Try using the HTML for ampersand, &. This is standard practice for web development but even most web developers overlook this character.

    15. Re:20m resolution and the landing sites... by Rei · · Score: 1

      It's even worse than that, generally. The lunar landers only reflect incident light. The objects we image millions of light years away radiate incredibly intense amounts of energy. The challenge is more akin to imaging a *planet* thousands of light years away.

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    16. Re:20m resolution and the landing sites... by NeoThermic · · Score: 1

      That would make the &'s appear, but slashdot is still stripping the slashes, question marks and decimal points from the WWURI's. I think the only way to get around that would be to fix the slash code :P

      NeoThermic

      --
      Use my link above, or to view my server, NeoThermic.com
  11. Linux and Mac Versions by kf6auf · · Score: 3, Informative

    According to the Wiki FAQ anyone is encouraged to work on the port of the current version with some resources they have made available and the next version (January 2006) should be cross-platform.

    1. Re:Linux and Mac Versions by TheBeansprout · · Score: 2, Informative

      Quite correct. The thing with World Wind is that it's community-driven, so if people want ports then they need to step up and join in. In addition to your links there's also a forum section for ports and a how to get involved page on the Wiki. We welcome all the help we can get - I came to WW from the Slashdotting 12 months ago, so let's see what this time can bring :)

  12. Thank you NASA for the Linux version by MarkKnopfler · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is indeed heartening to note that there is a plan to push out a Linux version, unlike Google which altogether seems to have forgotten the linux user.
    What is even sadder about Google is that it being a Linux shop, having derived so much benefit from the existence of Linux, refuses to actually return anything to the user community.

    1. Re:Thank you NASA for the Linux version by ben_evilben · · Score: 1

      Hmmm...summer of code?

    2. Re:Thank you NASA for the Linux version by dev!null!4d · · Score: 1

      Nothing you say, taken from http://code.google.com/projects.html

              * Google APIlity PHP Library for AdWords (google-apility)
              * google-coredumper (goog-coredumper)
              * google-perftools (goog-perftools)
              * google-goopy (goog-goopy)
              * google-sparsehash (goog-sparsehash)
              * google-mmaim (goog-mmaim)
              * google-sitemap_gen (goog-sitemapgen)
              * atomfeed (atomfeed)
              * google-ajaxslt (goog-ajaxslt)
              * google-kongulo (goog-kongulo)
              * google-adwords-api-client (goog-ad-api-cli)
              * google-prettify (goog-prettify)

      --
      ~www.devnull.co.uk
    3. Re:Thank you NASA for the Linux version by suezz · · Score: 1

      ya I totally agree - how long was it till they released the google bar for linux.

      they should be releasing linux versions at the same time as windows if not before.

      with their help desktop linux could take off. when the common joe user sees all this new stuff and it works on linux too it would help ease their fears about linux.

    4. Re:Thank you NASA for the Linux version by LaughingCoder · · Score: 1

      If you do a Windows version you accomodate the vast majority of the desktops on the planet. It is pretty hard to justify increasing the workload very much to cover the remainder. Has anybody tried this application on Wine (http://www.winehq.com/) ?

      --
      The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    5. Re:Thank you NASA for the Linux version by RandoX · · Score: 1

      Let's face it, Google is a web service provider. Regardless of how much Linux Google uses behind its doors, the vast majority of its users are using Windows. Like it or not, that's the bottom line.

    6. Re:Thank you NASA for the Linux version by MarkKnopfler · · Score: 1

      If you notice my comment, you will find that I have mentioned linux user community, and not development tools. The growth of linux largely depends on its popularity/user base, which most of us here would like to see, expand. Linux has not, and will not gain wide acceptance if it is retained as a development/geek computing platform. Acceptance and popularity comes from the ready availability of tools and applications. I would have thought that Google, would be one company which would do that -- It has not. The examples being --

      1. Google video. The application supposedly has portions of VLC in it, but does not have a linux port.

      2. Google desktop search. They never bothered to bring out a linux port. We of course have stuff like Beagle now, but that is not from Google.

      3. Google Earth. I understand that it is acquired software, but there is absolutely no plan to port it to Linux.

      4. Google talk. No voice support. In fact, no google talk client on linux, you can go ahead and use a jabber client. If Skype can push out a decent voip phone application on linux, I do not see why the PhDs at google cannot do the same.

      5. Picasa. No linux port nor do they have any plans for picasa on linux. In fact I use flickr since that gives me a flash interface that works fine on linux.

      So, to review, Google has not (largely) done anything to provides its kick-ass tools on Linux. I guess it is prudent business but I had thought that Google as a company would have the conscience to do something to for the linux user also. I personally do not think it has.
      Also, as a developer how often do you use the tools pushed out at code.google.com ? This is an unrelated query and not a part of the point that I am making. I am merely curious.

    7. Re:Thank you NASA for the Linux version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope slashdot covers the launch of the linux version. If we slashdot the fuck out of them they'll realise where their true fanbase lies.

    8. Re:Thank you NASA for the Linux version by dev!null!4d · · Score: 1

      I must admit, you've got a point. Sorry that my previous message came across a little harsh, I didn't mean it to sound that way.

      I'm not a developer, so can't really comment I'm afraid.

      --
      ~www.devnull.co.uk
    9. Re:Thank you NASA for the Linux version by chmod+u+s · · Score: 1

      So, to review, Google has not (largely) done anything to provides its kick-ass tools on Linux. I guess it is prudent business but I had thought that Google as a company would have the conscience to do something to for the linux user also. I personally do not think it has.

      Because largely linux users don't need it. I'm glad you think google desktop is a kickass app, but to me it is just so much fluff. The only useful bit is the ability to search outlook email and I don't run outlook on linux. find . |xargs grep "whatever" works fine for me.

      Google video? you mean video.google.com? how does that need a port?

      Google Earth, Google talk eh, maybe. But really I could care less

      Picasa? I used that software before it was acquired and it sucked.. I don't want a port of that turd

      What about all of the great platform-neutral apps they have given you for FREE? Search, Gmail, Maps, Video, Images, blah blah blah... From my perspective they have given me a crapload of apps, just none that sit on my local machine. That being said, I am sure reasons will develop to not like google related to this.

      Consider this syllogism: If knowledge is power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, then it follows that absolute knowledge corrupts absolutely. Assuming an iff relationship between knowledge and power. Pass me the spliff man. ;)

    10. Re:Thank you NASA for the Linux version by Explo · · Score: 1

      Quote is from the Google Earth support page (emphasis added by me): " Do you support Macintosh? At this time, Google Earth supports Windows only; however, we hope to support Mac and Linux OS soon. In the meantime, although it might be slower, some Mac users have had success running Google Earth with a PC emulator. "

      --
      Everyone who makes generalizations should be shot.
  13. data data data only 22 CDROMs by rednuhter · · Score: 5, Informative

    the 22 CD ROMs from the Clementine project can be accessed from here

    http://starbase.jpl.nasa.gov/archive/clem1-l-h-5-d im-mosaic-v1.0/
    (jpegs are in the browse directories)

    or if you have not the got the bandwidth they are only 220 USD from

    http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/cd-rom/web_store.cgi?ca tegory=hires

    now if only I could find a the above as a DVD torrent, hmmm

    --
    ERR 411[Max number of witty sigs reached]
  14. I wonder by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 0, Redundant

    if you could see the remains from the lunar landings. Of course, for the tin foil hat crowd, that would mean that the images were of Arizona.

    --
    There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
    1. Re:I wonder by spot35 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the 20m per pixel resolution will put paid to that. I don't think any of the landers were more than 20m along any one side, so I doubt they'd show up. And if they did, it wouldn't be in any easily discernable form.

  15. Yeah but... by kf6auf · · Score: 1, Informative

    When you zoom in all the way, is it made of cheese?

    Try it.

  16. Imperial strikes back by Crouty · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "so we can now deliver the moon at 66 feet (20 meters) of resolution."
    I hope this is just press conference talk. Otherwise they should better not put metric in parenthesis but imperial measures. Just mod me flamebait not yet, there have rockets lost before because of this.
    --
    On se Internetz nobody noes your German.
    1. Re:Imperial strikes back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "this"?

      Maybe you mean rockets were lost because of the metric system?

    2. Re:Imperial strikes back by LearnToSpell · · Score: 1

      "...so we can now deliver the moon at 66 feet (66 feet) of resolution."

      That better?

    3. Re:Imperial strikes back by Crouty · · Score: 1
      > Maybe you mean rockets were lost because of the metric system?
      Not exactly. Because of the inability to deal with the metric system used by every space agency on this planet (for very good reasons).
      --
      On se Internetz nobody noes your German.
    4. Re:Imperial strikes back by joeljkp · · Score: 1

      According to my ex-NASA professor, Marshall uses metric because that's what the rest of the world uses (as you say), but Johnson uses Imperial because they deal directly with astronauts, and they think (or have historically thought) in Imperial units.

      --
      WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
    5. Re:Imperial strikes back by Crouty · · Score: 1
      Imperial is the inferior system and everybody knows it. Still, when it comes to efficiency you can't ignore the psychology of astronauts that grew up with weird units.

      Don't know if astronauts are allowed to use (or think in) imperial units. I would suppose risks for a mission decreases if all personnel involved is "brainwashed" to metric.

      --
      On se Internetz nobody noes your German.
  17. Torrent Link? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't find a torrent link. Somebody care to oblige?

  18. A Linux version?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    You want the moon on a bloody stick?! :)

  19. Hoooooooooraaaaay by hdante · · Score: 0, Troll

    I use Linux !11/1/1;1!!!!1 I'm staying behind on the information superhighway !1!!!!

  20. Developers are forking code to use java and c#! by christophercook · · Score: 5, Insightful

    According to the developer they are planning to create a Java version for linux as well as the C#/DirectX version they have now:
    http://mail.worldwindcentral.com/pipermail/worldwi nd-dev/2005-September/000736.html

    This is nuts! Trying to make one big complicated from work is hard enough, making two versions of it written in different languages is inexplicable! The only real reason hinted at is that Microsoft wouldn't like NASA using Mono for an official application. Does Microsoft really want NASA to use Java just to spite Mono?

    Download the code for WorldWind and have a look, then consider porting it to Java/OpenGL/Java3D. Then consider just using Mono with OpenGL bindings. Or consider funding Wine so it supports .Net based apps (maybe not that far off? Wine DirectX already works for many modern games).

    Somebody talk some sense into them. Or tell me why I'm wrong, either way someone has to sort this out otherwise it's going to be a massive waste of time and money.

    I'm ranting, I know - can anyone else see how backward this is?

    1. Re:Developers are forking code to use java and c#! by wackysootroom · · Score: 1

      I'm left wondering why Microsoft has so much power over what NASA develops their applications in. Also, I would think that MS would be more concerned about a Java port than being able to run the C# app in Mono.

    2. Re:Developers are forking code to use java and c#! by NeoThermic · · Score: 1

      It might sound backwards, but WorldWind also uses .net stuff that Mono hasn't yet ported, so even if you tried to hack at WW to work with OpenGL, there'd still be outstanding items to fix in relation to the missing support from Mono.

      NeoThermic

      --
      Use my link above, or to view my server, NeoThermic.com
    3. Re:Developers are forking code to use java and c#! by christophercook · · Score: 1

      I agree that porting stuff Mono doesn't have already would take time and effort, however that would likely take a few months to do (perhaps even several). On the other hand a java port that has to live alongside the C# version will be required to be maintained for the lifetime of WorldWind and will always need to be kept in sync with the C# version. Obviously if they make a wholesale move to Java then they need only work about the java version. I would argue that sounds a much bigger task than just getting the existing Worldwind to work using modifications to current tools.

    4. Re:Developers are forking code to use java and c#! by bitflip · · Score: 1

      If it's anything like other neat projects I've seen from various places, the initial concept was written in whatever language the guy who came up with, and then wrote it, was familiar with.

      In other words, maybe this started out as some geek with an idea hacking at something in C#. Someone higher up got a look at it, and decided to offer it funding. Rather than start all over, they polished up and released what they had, and started working on the newer version.

      Really cool stuff is seldom driven by committee. Its usually some guy scratching an itch (and we're all the better for it, aren't we?)

  21. that is easy by spectrokid · · Score: 3, Funny

    they are not finished yet photoshopping the phoney lander in!

    --

    10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

  22. First? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Funny

    "This is a first. No one has ever explored our moon in the 3-D interactive environment that World Wind creates,"

    I think Neil Armstrong would have something to say about that.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
    1. Re:First? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Neil Armstrong had a better 3d environment than World Wind ever will so the statement still holds.

      That's assuming he did in fact go there.

  23. requires .NET 1.1 by edharper() · · Score: 0

    Bring on the linux version - World Wind requires the hateful .NET v1.1, installing which has destroyed two of my Windows 2000 machines.

  24. And the Sea of Tranquility... by silasthehobbit · · Score: 1

    ...is completely black! What a surprise! When you zoom in, there's nothing to see.

    Move along now, nothing to see.

    --
    silas
    hobbit

    1. Re:And the Sea of Tranquility... by TheBeansprout · · Score: 1

      Pop over to the forums if you need help :)

  25. Pink Floyd by aktzin · · Score: 2, Funny

    "There is no dark side on the Moon, really. Matter of fact, it's all dark."

    --
    Quantum mechanics: the dreams that stuff is made of.
  26. The vision of Bill Gates finally becomes reality.. by master_p · · Score: 1

    That's the real reason BillG named his O/S Windows! he knew some day we are gonna look at the screen and view the physical world, including the moon...

  27. That's no moon ... by ggvaidya · · Score: 1

    "... so we can now deliver the moon at 66 feet (20 meters) of resolution ..."

    "Lord Vader, is our conquest complete?"
    "The moon is to be delivered into our hands tonight, my Master"

    Odd choice of words there, but whatever. This is teh cool3st. Can't wait for the Linux version!

  28. Screenshots? by om3ga · · Score: 1

    and there's some moon screenshots available too

    So much for actually looking out the window to see what the moon looks like!

  29. Wheeee & WW2D by TheBeansprout · · Score: 2, Informative

    A goatse image on the Road Map page within 30minutes of the Slashdotting. You're getting slow dudes :p

    I didn't mention in the article, but there is a partial clone of World Wind for Linux done by a community member.See the thread here for more info.

    People can also join #worldwind on irc.freenode.net. That's probably the best way to get involved with developing and find out what's where.

    And lastly...yes, Mars is on the way. Stay tuned.

  30. The "Moon" is a ridiculous liberal myth. by AEton · · Score: 4, Funny

    It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)

    Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.

    Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!

    Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.

    --
    We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
    1. Re:The "Moon" is a ridiculous liberal myth. by SomeoneGotMyNick · · Score: 0

      Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950

      It isn't often I feed trolls, but here goes....

      A copy of this book was passed down through my family before it was sold off at a book exchange sometime in the 70's. It was printed in the late 30's.

      Of course I understand that the original post may have been sarcastic, but then again, so was my response.

    2. Re:The "Moon" is a ridiculous liberal myth. by Mesinjah · · Score: 1

      You are either joking us (good one) or you are the world's most ignorant person. There are ancient scriptures that refer to the moon dating back ten thousand years, well beyond whoever the hell Joshua is... Not to mention thousands and thousands of references well before the 1950's INCLUDING - that Bible thing.

    3. Re:The "Moon" is a ridiculous liberal myth. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir, are a moron.

    4. Re:The "Moon" is a ridiculous liberal myth. by Nuffsaid · · Score: 3, Funny

      Are you crazy?!? Do you _seriously_ believe in this liberal myth about the so-called "rotation of the Earth"? It is quite evident that Earth stands solidly still under my feet, as God created it 5000 years ago. Or was it 500?

      --
      Nuffsaid
      ________

      Don't know about his cat, but Schroedinger is definitely dead.
    5. Re:The "Moon" is a ridiculous liberal myth. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well put.

    6. Re:The "Moon" is a ridiculous liberal myth. by TheoGB · · Score: 1

      Wha? The above three direct replies seem to have real trouble detecting irony. Jesus.

      AEton is clearly a god and if I had the first clue how to be a 'fan' of someone I would do it here.

    7. Re:The "Moon" is a ridiculous liberal myth. by madaxe42 · · Score: 1

      Under *YOUR* feet? You, sir are forgetting that those are the LORD GOD'S feet which he allows you to use.

    8. Re:The "Moon" is a ridiculous liberal myth. by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      Assuming you're serious:

      Click on the little clear bubble image to the right of the person's name and you can alter your relationship with them (Friend/Neutral/Foe)

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    9. Re:The "Moon" is a ridiculous liberal myth. by TheoGB · · Score: 1

      Ah. I was serious, cheers. :-D

    10. Re:The "Moon" is a ridiculous liberal myth. by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 2, Informative

      That little "Phhhhhhhhhwfffft" sound you just heard? It was the joke flying about three miles over your head.

      HTH. ;-)

      --
      Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
    11. Re:The "Moon" is a ridiculous liberal myth. by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 1

      Indeed. It's also abundantly clear from a careful reading of your bible that it's impossible for the moon to orbit the earth in the way promoted by godless "scientists".

      Several passages on the bible refer to Jesus standing at a point and being able to see all four corners of the earth. Since it's impossible to stand in any position that allows you to see the entire surface area of a sphere, the earth cannot be spherical, and the "moon" cannot orbit it in the way "science" claims.

      Instead, the "moon" clearly moves over our (flat) earth in a complicated pattern dictated by God, which merely makes it look exactly as if it's a spherical body orbiting another spherical body on which we stand. Looks very like, in fact. Very very like.

      Regardless, it's proven in the bible that a spherical earth is impossible, and the astonishing superabundance of "evidence" given to us by "science" is clearly only there to test our faith, as we all know the moon is merely shifted by the hand of God exactly to replicate the apparent relative movements of two spheres in orbit around each other.

      We call this scientific theory "Intelligent Moving" to differentiate it from the mere theory of "Physics", and it will be taught in your secondary schools in the next academic year - watch your curriculum.

      In the mean-time we'll be starting a court battle to ban globes from the classroom, and have "Warning: Only A Theory" stickers slapped on Stephen Hawking, as well as Einstein and Newton's tombs.

      --
      Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
    12. Re:The "Moon" is a ridiculous liberal myth. by Nuffsaid · · Score: 1
      have "Warning: Only A Theory" stickers slapped on Stephen Hawking, as well as Einstein and Newton's tombs
      Nice. Applying one of those d-e-a-n-a-m-o things, we may well get some free electricity out of all the spinning that is about to occur. At least, in theory.
      --
      Nuffsaid
      ________

      Don't know about his cat, but Schroedinger is definitely dead.
    13. Re:The "Moon" is a ridiculous liberal myth. by lahvak · · Score: 1

      This book doesn't count! It was written by a Frenchman!

      --
      AccountKiller
    14. Re:The "Moon" is a ridiculous liberal myth. by lahvak · · Score: 1

      Your Bible may have moon in it, but that's only because it was smuggled in there by them Jews! My Bible has no moon in it! You must be a Catholic or something!

      --
      AccountKiller
    15. Re:The "Moon" is a ridiculous liberal myth. by ChuckleBug · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking it was a joke. There are many reasons I feel this way, but the biggest one is the obviousness.

    16. Re:The "Moon" is a ridiculous liberal myth. by MCraigW · · Score: 1
      Regardless, it's proven in the bible that a spherical earth is impossible,

      Funny!

      Let me preface what I'm going to say here by saying that I am an atheist, and I believe that the original texts of today's bible were the Wikipedia of their time, and that they were carefully edited over time to come to the version that has been translated into modern bibles.

      Let me point out though, that today's Christian interpretation of these texts is that when the bible says that the earth has four corners or other such things, they are taken in the same way that if somebody today said they had traveled to the four corners of the earth, that is not in a literal sense. Also, the bible does have passages that refer to the "circle of the earth" ("ball of the earth" in some versions) in Isaiah 40:22. The bible also has text that says "He hangs the earth on nothing" in Job 26:7. So, Christians (or others that believe in the texts of the Old Testament) today can still reason that the bible supports scientific fact.

    17. Re:The "Moon" is a ridiculous liberal myth. by alecks · · Score: 1

      What a blatent rip. I read this exact comment a while ago.... (and it case that was you who posted the original, then what a blatent karma whore)

    18. Re:The "Moon" is a ridiculous liberal myth. by StopSayingYouSir · · Score: 1

      Knock it off.

    19. Re:The "Moon" is a ridiculous liberal myth. by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 1

      Indeed. And those who carefully read the bible, and aren't afraid to take parts of its contents as allegorical or illustrative have my total respect (although I still don't understand the construction of the logical blind-spot necessary for unconditional faith).

      However, there are also those who take a knee-jerk, unconsidered literal reading of the bible, and believe things like the story of Genesis was factually accurate, or that the Earth really is only 4004 years old, often even cherry-picking their "facts" and ignoring contradictory parts of the same source.

      They also tend to attempt to force their flawed interpretations on others, and are noted for repeatedly resorting to litigation to push their agenda into the classroom. It's these kind of believers that I was attempting to parody with my "4-corners" comment, since an uneducated literal interpretation could lead one to the conclusion I presented.

      That, and it was just a silly joke ;-p

      --
      Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
    20. Re:The "Moon" is a ridiculous liberal myth. by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 1

      I like that - a clean, renewable energy-source that draws its motive power from the collective outrage of a generation of scientists.

      And, as we know the collective stupidity of the Creationist/ID crowd is bottomless, presumably so is the amount of outrage they can generate in anyone who can string two thoughts together and understands concepts like "elementary logic".

      I think we might have just solved the world's energy problems for all time.

      --
      Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
  31. 20 METERS? by Da+Fokka · · Score: 4, Funny

    For the last couple of months I have been checking obstinately if high-resolution data was finally available for my location - Utrecht, the Netherlands. But to no avail, I still have to manage with a measly 30m resolution. I can't quite see my house from up here!

    I understood the general reason for it - You start with the large cities and work down from there. There is little reason to provide hires data of the Sahara.

    But now we have been taken over by THE FRIGGIN' MOON! The data of that desolate celestial body is more accurate than the data of the Netherlands.

    1. Re:20 METERS? by Crouty · · Score: 1
      There is little reason to provide hires data of the Sahara.

      But now we have been taken over by THE FRIGGIN' MOON! The data of that desolate celestial body is more accurate than the data of the Netherlands.

      Sahara, Netherlands, both flat and featureless. What's the difference?

      ;-) just kidding. I like Oranje. :-)

      --
      On se Internetz nobody noes your German.
    2. Re:20 METERS? by fourtyfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hey, I'm a WW Dev, I do mostly imaging stuff.
      Hate to break it to you, but the reason their is no imagery for your area is because of _Your Government!_ The US Government has released most of the imagery (non-classified) that it has for the whole country, and thus, we have it in World Wind. I believe New Zealand has also done such a thing. We also have some imagery from South Africa. Sine we're not google, we cant pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to purchase the imagery from Digital Globe and the other imaging companies, so we have to wait until it becomes public domain. If you'd like data for your country in World Wind, contact YOUR government, and get the deal going! Explain to them why it would be better for them to give us the data, instead of selling it to the citizens that paid for it.

    3. Re:20 METERS? by fire-eyes · · Score: 1

      For the last couple of months I have been checking obstinately if high-resolution data was finally available for my location - Utrecht, the Netherlands. But to no avail, I still have to manage with a measly 30m resolution.

      Where do you get this imagery from? I will be visiting Netherlands and Utrecht and other locations next week (I am from the USA), because I may move there for a job.

      I've used google maps, but I'm guessing that's nowhere near as good as 30m.

      --
      -- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
    4. Re:20 METERS? by Idarubicin · · Score: 2, Informative
      But now we have been taken over by THE FRIGGIN' MOON! The data of that desolate celestial body is more accurate than the data of the Netherlands.

      For what it's worth, the Moon has a surface area of a bit less than forty million square kilometers. The Earth has a surface area of more than five hundred million square kilometers. The Moon's a way easier job. If it makes you feel better, the resolution of the Netherlands (er, images thereof...) is proportionately quite a bit better than the Moon data.

      ...And yes, I know that there are other reasons for the limited availability of the Netherlands imagery.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    5. Re:20 METERS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's because there's more interesting stuff on the moon than in Utrecht.

      (sorry, couldn't resist. actually I've been to Utrecht, it is a nice place)

    6. Re:20 METERS? by Da+Fokka · · Score: 1

      Google Earth has ~30m resolution. I can see the larger roads, but nothing like the 1m data they have of Amsterdam and Rotterdam :(

      Have a lot of fun in Utrecht, it's a very nice city! Actually, if the data were better, you'd be able to see my house at lat=52.0964391273, lon=5.12191902758 :)

  32. Microsoft Windows only...as usual by Compile+'em+all · · Score: 1

    No Mac or GNU/Linux versions. it is based on DirectX and .Net :-S

    1. Re:Microsoft Windows only...as usual by linforcer · · Score: 1

      That's ok. Us Linux geeks never go out and see the sun (that big yellow sphere in the ceiling). Why would we bother with seeing the moon?

    2. Re:Microsoft Windows only...as usual by Vo0k · · Score: 1

      to predict managerial behaviour?

      --
      Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
    3. Re:Microsoft Windows only...as usual by itchy92 · · Score: 1

      No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.

      --
      Slashdot: News for nerds. Stuff tha-- MICRO$OFT IS THE DEVIL!!1
  33. They were asking for it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    A goatse image on the Road Map page within 30minutes of the Slashdotting.

    An article about viewing the moon. A name that involves wind. And a wiki...

    And you really thought this was not going to happen? You must be new here!

    1. Re:They were asking for it... by TheBeansprout · · Score: 0

      :D

      I've been around /. for a few years, just created this new account because I forgot / never used the old one :)

  34. Re:Let me be the first to say... by zeristor · · Score: 1

    I doubt the Americans have seen "The Mighty Boosh".

    [O yes we have]
    (O no you haven't)

    British comedy, isn't that Monty Python? "Oh I really like Are you being served", etc, etc.

  35. Did they land on the moon? No... by Mesinjah · · Score: 0, Redundant

    We should have images of the moon with left over equipment in view, such as rover vehicles and flags and Lunar modules. Why has nobody had any images of this stuff on the surface? They didn't go to the moon in the 60's lets face it. We would have had long range images from Earth showing all this crap still sitting there on the moon, but no... Nobody ever has seen that, just like this application doesn't see it. Without proof, it didn't happen!

  36. Dark Side of the Moon by digitaldc · · Score: 1

    I enjoy listening to Pink Floyd while exploring the moon.
    I have found that it is not made of cheese, it is made of pixels.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:Dark Side of the Moon by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      "I have found that it is not made of cheese, it is made of pixels."

      My God! It's full of pixels!

    2. Re:Dark Side of the Moon by digitaldc · · Score: 1

      That's no moon, its a cyberspace station!

      --
      He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  37. Re:OS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Windows users get the Earth and the Moon. We get a spinning beachball.

  38. View the moon in 3D with your EYES!!! by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

    It's called "looking up" folks!

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    1. Re:View the moon in 3D with your EYES!!! by Use+Psychology · · Score: 1


      at that distance the moon is essentially projected onto the celestial sphere... i.e. 2D. you cannot distinguish topology, just shading.

    2. Re:View the moon in 3D with your EYES!!! by TV_Slug · · Score: 1

      You can't "look up" to see the dark (far) side of the moon very well. Interestingly, you can't use this software to view certain areas of imagery that are conveniently missing from their data also. Notice especialy the left side of this shot with the strange pattern. http://www.worldwindcentral.com/hotspots/view_hots pot.php?id=1642&mode=full And as already mentioned, in the upper right, they don't have the core of the big, obvious impact crater? Somehow I don't think so!

      --
      In the mid-1950's, Zenith engineers created the first wireless TV remote control, eliminating the need to have a child.
    3. Re:View the moon in 3D with your EYES!!! by MCraigW · · Score: 1
      And as already mentioned, in the upper right, they don't have the core of the big, obvious impact crater? Somehow I don't think so!

      The pattern of missing rectangular chunks here and there does suggest that perhaps those areas have been intentionally removed from our view. So what are the theories as to why those areas have been deleted from the images? Do the little green men live there, or perhaps there is just evidence of alien civilization there?

  39. Hey! by Nuffsaid · · Score: 1

    The so-called "Dark Side" of the Moon is actually dark! At least, stripes of it...

    --
    Nuffsaid
    ________

    Don't know about his cat, but Schroedinger is definitely dead.
    1. Re:Hey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because they had to hide all of the ... oh, crap! They're already here.

  40. Merge the two? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    I think it would be cool if the functionality of the two was merged. Just imagine have finished looking at our solar system, being able to come back to Earth and zoom into your house :)

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:Merge the two? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  41. Written in C# ... by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    Just downloaded the source code and noticed that it was written in C# of all languages. I suppose it wouldn't have been any better had it been written in Objective-C. Looks like if we want a true multi-platform version, then we need need to port it to a true multi-platform language, such as C/++ or Java (propriety, but has VMs on most platforms).

    It may just be easier to work out the architecture and just do a rewrite.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:Written in C# ... by adamhill · · Score: 1

      Note: All but two of the projects (WorldWind and WorldWindow) now compile in Mono 1.1.9. So while a C# port would still not be trivial, it is a lot closer than it was in some earlier versions of Mono.

      Plus we got a new version of Tao today (OpenGL binding for Mono/.NET)- http://www.mono-project.com/Tao

  42. Interesting outliers by greg_barton · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm always fascinated by tiny inconsistencies. For instance, in this picture of the dark side of the moon, there are a few areas that haven't been photographed. The areas are in relatively consistent patterns, where the sattelite's camera may have malfunctioned or the orbit didn't cover certain areas. All except for one. Check out the top right, on the left side of a large crater. It's an outlier, all by itself, smack in the middle of an interesting formation. Wouldn't they have tried to get that spot again, on a second go around? Why is it missing? And why isn't it part of a patern like the others?

  43. Why this is a first... by HellYeahAutomaton · · Score: 2, Funny

    "This is a first. No one has ever explored our moon in the 3-D interactive environment that World Wind creates," Perhaps it is because in all previous versions that myself and others ran that World Wind crashed?

  44. There are twelve Mysterions walking the Earth by Thud457 · · Score: 2, Funny
    Oh, he went there.

    That just wasn't him that came back!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  45. The Moon, only in three dimensions? by payndz · · Score: 2, Funny

    Inignot: You and your third dimension.
    Frylock: What about it?
    Inignot: Oh, nothing, it's cute. We have five.
    Err: Th... thousand.
    Inignot: Yes, five thousand.
    Err: Don't question it.
    Frylock: Oh, yeah? Well, I only see two.
    Inignot: Well, that sounds like a personal problem.

    --
    You must think in Russian.
  46. What a pity by Snaller · · Score: 1

    That world wind is bloat ware... and that its 20 meters - too far away, I want to be able to see the flag :)

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  47. DUPE! by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've read this before. Mr. plagiarizing karma farmer.

    In fact, a google search for some key text reveals two postings to slashdot alone. http://www.google.com/search?q=he%20may%20as%20wel l%20have%20said%20%22We%20choose%20to%20go%20to%20 the%20weather%20balloon.%22%20

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    1. Re:DUPE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This is no dupe - it's a Slashdot institution. This isn't plagiarism - it's homage! Can you imagine my surprise to see fifty comments on this (let's be honest) weak story and to see not a single copy of this classic piece from 70%? Like the Declaration of Independence on a July 4 article, like the GNU GPL in an SCO article, and like an unabashed "yes" in "Kathleen Fent Read This Story", "The Moon: Absurd Liberal Myth" needs no introduction in a Slashdot story about the moon.

      There is more Slashdot subculture in heaven and earth, zippthorne, than is dreamt of in your philosophy.

      Have you no sense of history? Have you forgotten theonomist and 80md and ell7 already? Is all the 'trolling' you can imagine that pathetic tripe that comes out of GNAA, anti-slash (no offense, chaps), goatse.info, and the pathetic-shade-of-its-former-self 20721?

      A
      |_A
       
       


      You, sir, disgrace yourself and you dishonor the Slashdot community. I recommend in future postings on the subject you instead supply the following reply, attributed to jsm (a.k.a streetlawyer):

      I simply refuse to put up with limp, Satanic, fellow-travelling shit like this piece of sub-human garbage in your pewling, idiotic post:
      "Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!)"
      Let's count the errors, shall we?

      1. The Earth does not "rotate". If it did, we would all be blown around ten ways to Tuesday by the winds created.
      2. If the Earth did rotate, then one would expect to see tornadoes in the area at the centre of rotation. This would imply that Kansas is the centre of the Earth, a thought pleasing to my personal sympathies, but contradicted by scripture. There has never been a tornado in Jerusalem.
      3. Joshua asked Our Lord to stop the Sun, you ignorant asshole, not the Earth. What possible good would it have done to stop the Earth from moving?
      4. Your blasphemous statement that the Moon "reflects" light from the Sun directly contradicts Genesis 3:16, in which it is made perfectly clear that "he created the moon, that the slimy crawling things by night might see". Which part of "he created", don't you understand? Your pathetic advocacy of the fraudulent theory (and it IS a THEORY, not some bourgeois, East-Coast elitist idea of a "fact") is sickening.

      Your evil whinings are, quite frankly, tantamount to liberalism.

      See how much better your reply could have been? Instead you karma whored with a post about karma whoring, which at the end of the day is so overdone that it's only +3, ironic. Study up; work hard; try again next year.

      I wish you all the best.
  48. earth3d by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could anyone tell me what will stop anyone using those jpegs in Earth3d?
    http://www.earth3d.org/

  49. Wow, there is no palestine! by diorcc · · Score: 1

    I was roaming around with that thing and zooming in on countries. Somehow I ended up in the middle east and roamed near israel. Looked around for Palestine... THERE is not such thing! According to NASA's map whatever is called Palestine just belongs to Jordan, the rest to israel :P What does that tell you?

    1. Re:Wow, there is no palestine! by nagora · · Score: 1
      According to NASA's map whatever is called Palestine just belongs to Jordan, the rest to israel :P What does that tell you?

      It tells you that NASA are following the world's convention. Hardly any countries recognise the existance of Palistine as to do so would run the risk of being branded "terror states". What does that tell you?

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  50. moon men by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its ok to look at the moon but dont go there. on the moon nerds get their pants pulled down and they are spanked with moonrocks!!!

  51. check out moon.google.com by eyegor · · Score: 2, Informative

    Google is hosting a nice site called moon.google.com that's similar to google maps. You can actually zoom in close and see detailed views of the moons construction.

    Highly recommended

    --

    Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
    1. Re:check out moon.google.com by md81544 · · Score: 1

      Have you noticed what you see when you zoom right in to Google Moon? I laughed out loud.

  52. Great by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 2, Funny

    So, now we're getting mooned from our own computers? What will they show us next? Uranus?

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  53. Re:Let me be the first to say... by ishepherd · · Score: 1
    --
    fud, notfud, yes, no, maybe
  54. None would swear they were ever on the moon. by NRAdude · · Score: 0

    They swear not on a Bible, I've said many times: testimony that is not sworn as true and complete and correct and not mis-leading and in unlimited commercial liability, in affidavit form and witnessed by a notary; is of no value.

    With all the computer graphics improving at such a phenomenal appearance to natural environmental conditions, it would possible now to fake any artifact or extra-terrestrial event or passage of time and money for purposes of fraud. The falsified UFO picture are an example, so there is no ill will that the same scrutiny is applied to the moon-landing photographs. It was a long time ago, and because all the astronaughts never did swear to the public AND private long ago, they would doubtless recall the events with same precission as an earlier "story" or at the actual site of the occasion. There was this one man, alleged by the News corporations abroad to be a "conspiracy theorist", despite having a persona remeniscent of selling air (and News Air, btw). He arranged a somwhat biased botch with some fictional childrens' entertainment and unknowing to Buzz Aldrin. He, Bart Sibrel, asked Buzz Aldrin to swear on a Bible that they walked on the moon. Now before anyone accuses me of not letting this matter rest, it is only good that I bring it up so people can learn from these previous attempts of people to mis-lead or accuse or incompletly recuse eachother. Anyways, the conclusion to Bart Sibrel's question was Aldrin punching him in the face. That's not a verry honorable outcome, but expected of one's character being prematuraly slandered despite the same character enjoining to improved prejudice as a celebrated hero. Bart Sibrel immediatly asked his cameraman "did you get that[?]", and they moved in opposing directions.

    There is a Google cache of another forum conversing the accusations, with a link to the Video of Aldrin punching Sibrel.

    --
    without prejudice
  55. There is green cheese on the Moon! by gethor · · Score: 1

    Lat. 17.11767 Long. -88.18770

  56. Google + NASA Ames by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, they do have a partnership now, I remember reading it somewhere.

  57. Annoyingly complex naming... by dimension6 · · Score: 1

    Why all the different and unrelated names for each feature? This makes "World Wind" confusing to use at first...

  58. Interesting Object? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check this out, looks like an object with the number 6 on it.

    worldwind://goto/world=Moon&lat=25.00002&lon=6.552 98&alt=135749&dir=93.5&tilt=11.4

  59. 3D Mars on Linux and Windows by mmacdona86 · · Score: 1
    Same idea-- global Mars Orbiter data (about 600 meter resolution, though)

    Launches from the browser in Linux (386) and windows

    http://www.antlersoft.com/demo3d/mars/index.html/